From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1754415AbZLJOrx@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754415AbZLJOrx (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:47:53 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752364AbZLJOrt
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:47:49 -0500
Received: from www.tglx.de ([62.245.132.106]:55652 "EHLO www.tglx.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1750921AbZLJOrt (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:47:49 -0500
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:45:28 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
       Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
       Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
       Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
       David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 7/9] signals: Fix more rcu assumptions
In-Reply-To: <20091210143435.GC8226@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0912101545000.3089@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20091210001308.247025548@linutronix.de> <20091210004703.269843657@linutronix.de> <20091210143435.GC8226@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> On 12/10, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > 1) Remove the misleading comment in __sigqueue_alloc() which claims
> >    that holding a spinlock is equivalent to rcu_read_lock().
> >
> > 2) Wrap the __send_signal() call in send_signal() into a rcu read side
> >    critical section to guarantee that the __sigqueue_alloc()
> >    requirement is met in any case.
> > ...
> >  static int send_signal(int sig, struct siginfo *info, struct task_struct *t,
> >  			int group)
> >  {
> > -	int from_ancestor_ns = 0;
> > +	int ret, from_ancestor_ns = 0;
> >
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_PID_NS
> >  	if (!is_si_special(info) && SI_FROMUSER(info) &&
> > @@ -954,7 +953,11 @@ static int send_signal(int sig, struct s
> >  		from_ancestor_ns = 1;
> >  #endif
> >
> > -	return __send_signal(sig, info, t, group, from_ancestor_ns);
> > +	rcu_read_lock();
> > +	ret = __send_signal(sig, info, t, group, from_ancestor_ns);
> > +	rcu_read_unlock();
> 
> But, without a comment it is very unobvious why do we need rcu_read_lock().
> 
> Perhaps it is better to modify __sigqueue_alloc() instead? It can take
> rcu_lock() around cred->user itself.

Indeed. Was too tired to see the obvious :)

Thanks,

	tglx